tv The Ed Show MSNBC March 8, 2013 12:00am-1:00am PST
numerals with its xs and is and ds and cs and ms. what's great about our numbers system is the ease with which you can haggle like in an arab marketplace. the guy says the item will cost you 9. you say 7. he says take it for 8. beautiful. so the republicans want to cut spending. the democrats said they want to raise taxes, especially on the well off. they both say they want to cut the deficit. stop adding to the national debt. so fortunately, we have a perfect number system to do it. the conservatives say the federal government should only be spending one out of five dollars produce the by the economy each year, one dollar in five. conservatives also say the federal government shouldn't run up a deficit. simple. then raise one dollar in five in taxes or stop complaining about the deficit. same for the democrats. the math works just as well for them. this they want the government to spend more they should back the revenue level up to that amount. so if both sides want to bargain, if they really want to get to a solution, here it is. both sides have to agree, a, to tax enough to pay for the government they believe in and, b, limit the size of government to the level they're willing to tax to pay for. go ahead. the number system's fine,
perfect for haggling and you don't have to head over to the jefferson hotel to do it. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "the ed show" with ed schultz starts right now. good evening, and welcome to "the ed show" from new york. rand paul, the senator from kentucky, okay, he gets all kinds of accolades for standing up. i think he's grandstanding. and i think it's very dangerous. this is "the ed show." let's get to work. >> i rise today for the principle -- >> it's one thing to stand with rand paul for his talking filibuster. but is anyone listening to his absurd fear-mongering? >> that americans could be killed in a cafe in san francisco is an abomination. >> john mccain drops the boom on rand paul. >> and he needs to do more than pull political stunt that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. >> and lindsey graham calls out his own party. >> i don't remember any of you coming down here suggesting that president bush was going to kill anybody with a drone. >> tonight, james carville on
the republican chaos on the senate floor. and i'll also tell you about an actual filibuster that matters. and why leader harry reid is to blame. paul ryan visits the white house. and the president is getting ready to serve up the big three. senator bernie sanders joins me to tell the president to hold the line on earned benefits. and netflix strikes gold with the political drama "house of cards." >> your life, peter, and what i know about it, you should assume there's no such thing as a secret. >> tonight actor michael kelly is here with all the latest on his hit series. >> good to have you with us, folks. thanks for watching. last night on this program we showed you this chart from the southern poverty law center. the number of extreme militia groups in america is at an all-time high. record high. now, today everyone is lathered up and talking about how senator
rand paul is so fantastic in his filibuster to delay the confirmation of cia chief john brennan. but let's not forget what rand paul actually said when he took to the senate floor to talk about the obama administration's drone program and policy of targeted killings. this is what has me fired up tonight. >> that americans could be killed in a cafe in san francisco or in a restaurant in houston or at their home in bowling green, kentucky is an abomination. it is something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country. >> tolerated? anybody talking about doing that? rand paul goes to the well of the senate and fuels the very nut jobs we heard about from the southern poverty law center. the senator from kentucky, you know what he is doing? he is inflaming the extremists by saying that the government might execute drone strikes on any american who might take a side against the president of the united states. this is totally crazy.
and to accuse the president of conspiring to kill americans in this country in cafes. and what's he picking on san francisco for? well, houston was in there, too. i mean, come on! this is a united states senator playing with fantasy that you know what? these drones are pretty powerful things. i mean, we could be using these things to take out americans. as if there's absolutely a free-for-all going on, that there's no oversight whatsoever? some members of rand paul's own party had heard enough. >> we've done i think a disservice to a lot of americans by making them believe that somehow they're in danger from their government. they're not. >> wow. he's got all his marbles. senator mccain was outraged in the senate chamber today because he knows a thing or two about inflaming the fringe elements in
the country. you see, he once had a running mate that did it all the time. mccain was joined by his tag team partner from south carolina, lindsey graham, calling out the junior senator from kentucky. >> i find the question offensive. as much as i disagree with president obama, much as i support past presidents, i do not believe that question deserves an answer. >> well, wait a second now. attorney general eric holder thinks that rand paul does deserve an answer. and he gave him one. after 13 hours of filibustering holder sent a simple 43-word response to senator paul. "it has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question -- does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an american not engaged in combat on american soil? and the answer to that question is no." well, rand paul said that he was satisfied with that response and there was no additional hold on john brennan's nomination. brennan was confirmed today by the senate by a vote of 63-34. but the great divide within the
republican party remains. while senator rand paul was in the late hours of his filibuster last night, republicans, including john mccain, they were out to dinner with the president. and today mccain was one of the leading voices defending the obama administration. >> to somehow say that someone who disagrees with american policy and even may demonstrate against it is somehow a member of an organization which makes that individual an enemy combatant is simply false. it is simply false. >> mccain's anger was directed at other colleagues who said that they should know better. drone supporter marco rubio jumped into rand paul's spotlight to question the use of drones. so did republican leader mitch mcconnell. lindsey graham had to laugh at the hypocrisy of these opportunists. >> to my republican colleagues, i don't remember any of you coming down here suggesting that
president bush was going to kill anybody with a drone. >> graham's point is at the heart of the disagreement with rand paul. rand paul has a problem with the republican definition of war. >> their position is that the whole world is a battlefield including america and that the laws of war apply to america. in war you don't get due process. if you're in afghanistan, you're american shooting at our soldiers, they can shoot you, they don't ask for a warrant. but in our country you do have due process. so our country isn't a battlefield with no laws. >> this is an argument all americans no doubt should consider. but it is not what rand paul was doing in his filibuster. he was taking it i think to a new level of extremism. his colleagues were right to call him out on it. get your cell phones out. i want to know what you think. tonight's question, was senator paul's rhetoric during his filibuster dangerous? text a for yes, b for no to 67622. you can always go to our blog at ed.msnbc.com. we'll bring you the results
later on in the show. joining me tonight, james carville, democratic strategist, political consultant, and author of "it's the middle class, stupid." james, good to have you back on "the ed show." >> always good to be here. >> i tell you what, that must have been a heck of a dinner last night. president obama must have really fed them good when you've got john mccain and lindsey graham defending his policy on the senate floor and calling out their own party. what do you make of that? >> well, they've gone back and forth. let's remember, this is a party vast numbers think that the dinosaurs and people occupied the earth at the same time. vast numbers deny climate i mean, they've got people like preppers and birthers and god knows whatnot over there. so some of them are going to -- by the way, freedomworks, you remember this clown outfit, paid dick armey an $8 million severance and they had guns up they're supporting rand paul to the nth degree.
he doesn't have deep support with all these cockamamie conspiracy theories he's got going and blowing people up in restaurants in houston and bedrooms in bowling green. >> it is so over the top it's outrageous. i've never heard a senator theorize like that on the floor before. members that are on birther bills. you had half the republican presidential field in 2008 denying evolution. i mean, this isn't just some kind of nutty thing -- this is a party -- i'm not saying all of them. can imagine. >> yeah. well, he's definitely playing with his imagination to think -- what's he think, that the military's going to call up the state police there in ken and all of a sudden a couple of his buddies are going to be a target? it's just nuts. >> but i mean look -- there's a big -- he has a lot of -- like i said, the tea party, the quote
this. i think paul probably has some support out here among these it doesn't make sense to me, but a lot of stuff that they say makes no sense to me. >> and rand paul of course is pounding his chest, talking about all the support he's getting for the filibuster. >> a lot of americans send us letters and e-mails and twitter. people were excited that we were standing up for something that's important to a lot of people. >> okay. now, is this all about 2016 for this joker? what do you think? >> well, it's a combination. i think it is about 2016 for him. i think it's also about -- i think he believes some of this stuff. i don't have a question to -- rand paul i think has been out there and been out there for a long, long time. but understand, he's not way out of the mainstream of a good part of the republican party. these are the same people that
were buying gold bullion from glenn beck or whatever he was doing over there. these people will bite on any kind of conspiracy you put out there for them. and he's getting those ducks lined up. for all i know he may be a formidable candidate in 2016. >> all right. whether or not the senate fill buffett, what he did, this you stunt, is it going to help the senate reconsider the rules on filibuster? of course i'll have commentary on that later. auf got some democratic senators over there who were pushing harry reid to change the rules and lo and behold here comes rand paul doing the talking filibusters, what they were talking about all along. >> i'm not a parliamentary expert. but i think this filibuster when you stand up and you've got to dot jimmy stewart thing and stand up and talk forever, that that can last only so long, but now i think the rule is they just don't get 60 votes and threaten to filibuster, the bill goes down. i think there's going to be some
sort of tweaking. and they're holding up all kinds of judicial appointments and appointments to the government. the record, it's horrendous. it's much more than anything we've ever experienced in the past. and it has a great deal of frustration. i think rand paul's thing was kind of a comic show to a lot of people. but it was a 12 or 13-hour thing. >> about the drone program, where are the democrats on this debate? there's been very few democrats who are willing to call the president out on this. is it because he's just so popular, they're protect the president, they think he's got enough on his plate? they don't want to cause more problems for him? or what? >> you know, this is a difficult question. they've got a lot of bad people in the world. and the idea that you can kill some of these people without endangering our own people is attractive to some democrats. some attraction. this democrat being one of them. look, it's a difficult thing. there can be some oversight, there's some way we can deal with this. but we've gotten a lot of bad people with this program. we shouldn't forget that. >> rand paul talked about his
problem with the definition of war. lindsey graham had a response to that today. here it is. >> to my party, i'm a bit disappointed that you no longer apparently think we're at war. not senator paul. he's a man to himself. he has a view that i don't think is a republican view. i think is a legitimately held libertarian view. >> is this where the republican party is headed, a libertarian cam. and a traditional camp? i mean, the hypocrisy of, you know, a couple of these senators getting up, standing with rand paul on this. probably just to keep the filibuster going. but it just seems that they have really identified to the american people they've got an identity crisis, they don't even know where they stand on the use of military action if they've got the wrong president in there. >> look, certainly you have the libertarian camp and the national security camp for lack of a better word. rand paul versus mccain you're
talking about. but look at now the immigration thing. some of them are coming out saying we need to change that. a lot of them are saying no, under no conditions can you do that. now you have some republicans after the election saying maybe we should consider being for gay marriage. most of them are saying there's no way you can be for that. there's a lot of emerging strains of just coming together because this is a party and it's a movement that's under considerable pressure. it's been -- it's been rejected again by the voters in the presidential election, and it's driving them crazy. and you're seeing a lot of stuff. i love watching this. this is almost as much fun as going to tiger stadium, watching lsu playing an s.e.c. game. i'm enjoying it, to tell you the truth. >> that means you liked watching jeb bush earlier this week on immigration. there was a lost bouncing around on that. >> right. exactly. and he's really talented. governor bush is all tied up in a knot, too. there's a lot of people tied up in a knot. >> all right, james. you come back on "the ed show." good to have you with us tonight. >> thank you so much. >> remember to answer tonight's question at the bottom of your screen. share your thoughts with us on
twitter @edshow and on facebook. we always want to know what you think and appreciate you communicating with us, if you know. liberals. they are worried about president obama and what he served up at dinner last night. were afraid it might be the big three. bernie sanders has a lot to say about it next. and so do i. stay with us. rone, you should know that axiron is here. the only underarm treatment for low t. that's right, the one you apply to the underarm. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18. axiron can transfer to others through direct contact. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant, and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur. report these signs and symptoms to your doctor if they occur. tell your doctor about all medical conditions and medications. do not use if you have prostate or breast cancer. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer; worsening prostate symptoms; decreased sperm count;
ankle, feet, or body swelling; enlarged or painful breasts; problems breathing while sleeping; and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness or irritation where applied, increased red blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and increase in psa. see your doctor, and for a 30-day free trial, go to axiron.com.
rand paul's filibuster, it should be a message to democrats. i have a very special message for harry reid later in the program. and michael kelly of the red hot netflix series "house of cards" is here in the studio tonight. stick around. my radio show tomorrow. listen to it. xm radio channel 127 monday through friday noon to 3:00 p.m. share your thoughts with us on facebook and twitter using the hashtag edshow. we're coming right back. [ female announcer ] does your color have staying power... or just seem to fade away, day by day? don't compromise. new vidal sassoon pro series from the original salon genius. starts vibrant, stays vibrant. precision mix formula saturates each strand
thanks for staying with us tonight. let's just everybody get on the same page here. let's be brilliant on the basics. point one. the president is clearly hoping to strike a grand bargain on the budget. but the deal shouldn't be made on the backs of the middle-class voters who kept him in office for the next four years. the president met last night with nearly a dozen republican senators, which is good, to discuss the deficit and the potential savings of what? chain cpi. here we go. here comes the cave. the president is offering republicans a potential cut in social security benefits based on the consumer price index. the white house website estimates chain cpi could save $130 billion. really? hold it right there.
why do people who have paid into a program their entire working life all of a sudden have to serve up $130 billion because we went to war and didn't pay for it? experts here on this show have said repeatedly chain cpi is going to hurt seniors. social security should not even be on the table. it is not the problem. it is not the issue that created the problem that he with face financially in this country. many of the republicans who want to gut social security are responsible for the financial mess george w. bush left this country. close your eyes and you'll hit a devastating policy. it's like a dart board. no matter where you hit you've got a bullseye. w spent like no -- like there was absolutely no tomorrow. he refused to regulate wall street. in fact wanted to deregulate it, let them go wild in the housing market. gave us big pharma, ineffective tax cuts that did not increase the tax base and create a bunch
of jobs like they said it would. and of course put two wars on the american credit card for the next generation. and let's just get it straight, folks. since 9/11 we've spent almost $1.5 trillion on the wars in iraq and afghanistan. and there's a troubling new report. much of the money has been wasted. now, the special inspector general says the united states has wasted $8 billion on failed reconstruction projects. you know, nation building over there. we've wasted more than 13% of the money that we've sent over to iraq. now, we're spending billions on roads and bridges overseas while here in america we can't get the politicians to work together on an infrastructure package when we've got bridges falling down, killing people? when the republicans say that they can't afford infrastructure because of the deficit, they should remember that spending on both wars makes up half of what the country's current deficit is. this is the president who overspent, drove up the deficit, and forced us into the current crisis.
and let's not forget, he tried to privatize social security. and that is what the big golden goose is for them. they want to privatize everything. from the post office to the big three. you name it. if president obama -- that's right. if president obama cuts any of the big three, he is going to be turning his back on the middle class. because social security was not on the negotiating table when the obama team was out there saying that they're advocating for the middle class. this will be his legacy if he caves to these republicans, who for generations have wanted to go after the big three. now, am i getting off the obama bandwagon? let's see how all this goes. joining me tonight, senator bernie sanders of vermont. senator, good to have you with us. >> good to be here. >> is chain cpi a bad idea? >> it is a horrendous idea. it is totally absurd because for
a start, social security has not contributed one penny to the deficit. social security today has a $2.7 trillion surplus, can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible american for the next 20 years. just today congressman pete defazio and i introduced legislation to make social security strong for the next 50 years on taxable income starting at $250,000. you do that, it hits the top 1 1/2%. social security is strong for the next 50 years. second of all, this so-called chain cpi, let me tell you what it would do, ed. if you're 65 today, by the time you are 75 you're going to be losing about $650 a year. now, if you're living on 15,000 bucks a year, that is a lot of money. but it's not just seniors on social security. if you can believe it, this chain cpi will make devastating cuts for disabled veterans.
the men and women who lost arms and legs in iraq and afghanistan, the widows of people who were killed in iraq, it will mean significant cuts for them. do we really want to balance the budget on the backs of disabled vets and seniors making $15,000, 20 thousands a year on social security? i think not. >> senator, will republicans compromise on the budget if democrats don't offer cuts to the big three? and this really is cutting to the chase here. they say that there's no revenue. although some senators have said, well, maybe we can find some revenue somewhere but we've got to have big cuts in the big three. this is the ideological fight. isn't this what the election was all about? >> absolutely. >> so back to my question, can the republicans compromise on a budget if they can't touch the big three? >> ed, our job and the president's job, instead of caving in on social security and
veterans' programs and medicare, our job is to do exactly what the american people want us to do and make an offer that the republicans can't refuse. and that is rally the american people who overwhelmingly understand that number one, the wealthiest people are doing phenomenally well in this country and their effective tax rates are very low. that one out of four major profitable corporations in this country pays nothing in taxes. bank of america a few years ago, which has 200 subsidiaries in the cayman islands, paid zero in federal taxes. in fact, they got a rebate from the irs. >> republicans have no problems with that. >> they have no problems with that. they don't want to ask the wealthy or large corporations to pay a nickel more in taxes. we make that case to the american people, and i think the republicans cave. >> radio show today guy asks me what's fair? i said try paying something.
when you're paying nothing -- but this is how they think. and i just believe the president has to hear from liberals and progressives across this country. he needs to know that we are behind him. we want him to stand strong on this. and if we can't get a deal, what do we do, senator? just go to the mid-terms and run this thing all over again? >> look, you are dealing with a major ideological split in this country. it takes us back to the 1932 presidential election. hoover versus roosevelt. on this issue, ed, we have the vast majority of the american people behind us. we control the white house. it would be criminal to cave on this issue. >> criminal to cave. i agree. and i think all democrats need to stand up and remind the president what this is all about. having dinner with these guys, you can't trust them. we'll talk about that in the next segment when it comes to filibuster. senator bernie sanders, thank you for being with us tonight. >> democrats have a chance to
take a page from rand paul. and i'm going to tell you all about next. and john boehner's crying in his merlot because the president's having lunch with paul ryan. our big panel tackles that. stay with us. [ female announcer ] going to sleep may be easy, but when you wake up in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep.
do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal. intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia,
from republicans and just has the country talking. rand paul, think about this, has been running his mouth. his buddies in the senate were quietly blocking confirmation of caitlin halligan, president obama's nominee to the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. it was a silent filibuster. we've heard of them, haven't we? all senate republicans had to do was withhold votes to block halligan's nomination. for the second time in two years. we've been down this road before. unlike rand paul, they never had to face the american people on the floor and explain why they didn't want this to happen. and know who's to blame for all of that? harry reid. but time out. here's what harry reid said on the senate floor today. >> we should all reflect on what happened yesterday as we proceed with other nominations including a lot of judicial nominations. this can be a senate where ideas are debated in full public view. and obstruction happens in full public view as well. or it can be a senate where a
couple of senators obstruct from behind closed doors without ever coming to the senate floor. >> harry, we know this speech. we know the drill. if you're going to go swimming you've got to jump in the lake. just don't put your toe in there. you want some numbers, folks? it's about power. it's not about people. we're talking about clotures, right? 137 times. that's the number. from the 111th congress. got more numbers. the 112th congress, 115 times they pulled stunts like this. we've got more numbers. how's the judiciary working out for us? oh, we've only got 87 vacancies. that makes the courts run really, really nice. but of course they don't like the philosophy of the judges that president obama wants to put in there. reid can still use the constitutional option. he can still change the rules. here's the bottom line.
we are furious as liberals in this country for this man not doing what the american people wanted him to do. senator reid, you can't worry about the next session of congress. you need to worry about getting things done in this session, to keep liberals motivated to do what we have to do in 2014. because you've kind of titillated us with all this special language a couple of times, but you haven't just jumped in and gotten after it. senator reid, how many more chances are you going to give the obstructors? first, it was dinner with the senators. then lunch with paul ryan. and now john boehner is getting crabby. >> so no more big top-down deals? no more obama-boehner top-down deals or -- >> those haven't worked very well. >> the super panel weighs in on the president's new outreach to republicans. the push for a minimum wage
senator, how'd the meeting go? >> just fine. fine. great. wonderful. >> well, last night the president broke bread with a dozen republican senators over a two-hour dinner at the jefferson hotel in washington. the reviews, while lacking specifics, pretty positive. >> it was very respectful. i think people -- i think the president probably walked away saying that it was one of the best meetings he had been involved in probably since he's been here. and i think people on our side, the 12 senators that were there, felt like there was a lot of sincerity and
straightforwardness. >> all right. as nbc's first read blog reports, the overall suggestion from the dinner was that president obama would have to give cover for any cuts in medicare while the republicans would have to pony up additional revenue to get it. but not all lawmakers were clued into what the white house has already offered according to first read. one senator told us that he learned for the first time the actual cuts the president has put on the table. leadership hadn't shared that list with them before? huh? so where's the republican leadership? at this point not in the picture. and john boehner and mcconnell's refusal to cut a deal with president obama on higher revenues, the president is going around them in hopes of building a bipartisan consensus with others. the move did not go unnoticed. >> this week we've gone 180. now he's going to -- after being in office now over four years, he's actually going to sit down and talk to members. i think it's a sign, a hopeful sign, and i'm hopeful that something will come out of it. but if the president continues to insist on tax hikes i don't think we're going to get very far.
>> earlier the president had lunch at the white house with congressman paul ryan, chair of the house budget committee and its ranking democrat chris van hollen. >> we had a good lunch, a good conversation, a good meal, and i think it was a good spirit. i think what the president's trying to do is engage as many people as possible in this dialogue. >> okay. i'm joined tonight by democratic strategist tara dowdell, chris kofinas. and john nichols, washington correspondent of "the nation" magazine. i think americans, all they want to know, the liberals, the progressives who voted for president obama and went out there and did all the foot soldier work to get him re-elected. all they want to know is did you serve up the big three? chris kofinas, how important of an issue is this? >> well, it's going to be a pretty big issue. i guess there's two ways to look at it. the president, in order to get a big deal, is going to have to propose some type of entitlement changes. the problem is as soon as he
proposes entitlement changes there are people on the left and progressives like yourself and others who are going to get very upset and angry about why re with doing this, especially if the republicans aren't willing to put real revenues on the table. so i have a hard time believing at that dinner last night, unless the wine was really, really good, that republicans were really proposing any type of serious revenues that would justify a credible discussion about entitlement changes. >> terry, are you surprised by the gop reaction? >> well, i'm surprised that it was actually as positive as it was. but i do think ultimately this is the right thing for the president to do. the bottom line here is whether we like it or not he needs gop support in order to move his agenda forward and he has some big ticket items he wants to move forward such as immigration reform. now, whether this will yield or bear fruit in the end, that remains to be seen. but remember, d.c. is a town that's built on relationships. and these guys are used to being wined and dined. and many of them in the past have sponsored and co-sponsored bills that have called for
closing tax loopholes. so he does need to focus and remind them of that and try to see if he can use the old adage no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, only permanent interests. >> well, john nicholls, how does this dinner turn into action? when you have ideologically two parties that are bent on keeping what they fought for in the election. you've got the republicans who say no more revenue. you have the democrats, progressives out there leaning on the president, saying don't touch the big three because they're not the problem. where does it end up? >> well, i don't know where it ends up. and i don't think anyone does, including the president. but i think what the president's done here is very interesting. he's harkened back to an older kind of politics, and that is where strong presidents who have a mandate, and this president does have an electoral mandate, reach around the leadership of the opposition party into its ranks. president obama knows that 60 to 80 republicans in the house have
broken with the majority to vote for issues, storm aid, things like that, that democrats favor. he also knows that in the senate there are a number of senators who are very uncomfortable with the sort of constant battle that's been going on. so i think he's trying something here. but i think it is very, very important that this president not play the big three cards at this point. if he does, he'll get nothing. >> chris, what do you make of some of these senators didn't even know what the president had put on the table? number one, it's on the website. so they're not doing their homework. but that had not been communicated by leadership of the republican party to these senators that had dinner, some of them that had dinner with the president. >> yeah. to be honest, i find that really hard to believe. if they didn't get it themselves, i have a hard time understanding how they didn't get it from their staff. you know, putting that aside, i think what ends up happening in these situations, even amongst senators they get awestruck sitting down with the president.
and knowing a few of these senators in my time, they do like to be stroked. and in this case i think the president -- it was a smart strategy. sitting down with republicans, members of congress, is not a bad thing. it's a good thing. it's part of the job. i think reaching out and trying to find common ground is a smart strategy. >> tara, how could they not know what cuts were on the table? is it like they're living in a bubble and they don't want to do a deal so let's not involve everybody? >> i think there's still a lot of obstructionists out there and john boehner is one of the main ones and it would not surprise me one bit if he didn't share it with his members. but with the senate i find it a little suspect that they didn't know. i mean, the president is on television all the time talking about his agenda, his ideas and his concepts. so that part is a little suspect to me. but i will say this. i do think that the president needs to continue to kind of work around the leadership. because mitch mcconnell, remember, he's the guy that said, look, my number one goal is to make him a one-term
president. so i wouldn't put it past him that he's not necessarily communicating. >> john nichols, they also talked about gun legislation last night. and i don't think any of those republicans are going to be warming up to anything that the president has been talking about as of late. are you optimistic something's going to get done on that front? >> i think on background checks there's a lot of movement and clearly there's been a big effort in the last few days to communicate that background checks are very, very popular in the states where some of these senators are from. so you know, clearly that's a place where something could happen. but this becomes the complexity of washington, ed. these members of congress, senators and house members, have so many, many different ways that they want to go at things, so many different issues in play. the president may be able to cut a deal with them on something. but he has to be very, very careful not to cut a deal, say, on guns that barters away some of medicare. >> tara dowdell, chris kofinas, john nichols, great to have you on "the ed show."
the violent against women act which republicans had obstructed for a year. on facebook sonny rodriguez writes, "damn it, it took the congress and house all this time to pass a bill that should have been a no-brainer and yet here it is." vickie hanegan says, "what a wonderful day for the women's movement. thank you, mr. president." and don wuerl writes, "violence has no place in civilized society. those who voted against it should feel like morons." go to our facebook page now and you can get in on the conversation. don't forget to like "the ed show" when you're there. and we are coming right back.
this week george miller and senator harkin introduced an increase in the minimum wage. when we increased it in 2007 in our first 100 hours it was the first time it had been increased in 11 years. it's time for it to be increased again. >> hear hear. nancy pelosi supporting the fair minimum wage act of 2013. this new bill would raise the federal minimum wage over $10 an hour to $10.10. it would also provide adjustments on a cost of living basis, which of course is a big deal. the bill also is really great for business. costco ceo greg jelinek, he came out in support of the bill saying, "we know paying employees good wages makes good sense for business. we pay a starting hourly wage of $11.50 an hour and we are still able to keep our overhead costs low.
we know it's a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity, commitment, and loyalty." no doubt about it. jelinek knows when people have more money in their pockets it's good for business. currently full-time workers making minimum wage, they're earning just over 15 grand a year. this bill of course would bring it to $21,000. that would be a $6,000 raise. all good for folks. it would go right back in the economy. it's estimated in 2009 the minimum wage increase resulted in $5.5 billion in new consumer spending. the increase, as i said, it goes right back into the economy. what's wrong with that? nothing. except sometimes owners get writer's cramps. they just don't want to sign the check if it's minimum wage going up. it's no surprise costco pulled in a record $1.7 billion in profit last year. they have a reputation of taking care of their employees and their customers. meanwhile, this bill is long overdue.
you know, over the last 40 years minimum wage has only increased from $2 an hour to $7.25 an hour. over 40 years? any american worker who works over 40 hours a week deserves at least $10.10 an hour. but of course the republicans, they don't see it that way. >> i don't think the minimum wage law works. i want people to make a lot more than $9. $9 is not enough. the problem is if you can't do that by mandating it in the minimum wage laws. minimum wage laws have never worked in terms of helping the middle class attain more prosperity. >> tell that to costco. marco rubio's buddies on wall street, they're doing just fine right now. the dow closing at another record high today. it's time for the folks who take a shower after work to get a raise. support that bill tonight in our survey i asked you was senator rand paul's rhetoric during his filibuster dangerous? 91% of you say yes. 9% of you say no. coming up, michael kelly, star of the hit show "house of [ female announcer ] going to sleep may be easy, but when you wake up
in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal.
intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪
in the big finish tonight, politics is a dirty business. it hit a new low. and they got a new show out there that just shows how dirty it can be. and it is a dandy. "house of cards" is a 13-part series about a ruthless democratic whip, congressman frank underwood. played by kevin spacey. now, underwood will do anything to get what he wants. and he understands how power works in washington.
>> you're absolute unquestioning loyalty. >> always. >> do not misunderstand what i mean by loyalty. >> anything. name it, frank. >> you seem far too relaxed. >> i'm not. >> you shouldn't be. >> this series is a netflix original. and all 13 episodes of season 1 were released at once. it's a move that's being called revolutionary. netflix is spending $100 million on the project and production on season 2, which will soon be under way. our guest is doug stamper. he's the chief of staff of the powerful congressman. >> what's that? >> what's what? >> is that a hickey? are you whoring around again? >> no. i have a girlfriend. >> you mean your little office romance. >> what do you know about that? >> when it comes to your life, peter, and what i know about it,
you should assume that there's no such thing as a secret. >> that sounds about right. there's no such thing as a secret. especially in washington. let's bring in actor michael kelly from "house of cards." great to meet you. >> thank you very much. thanks for having me. >> this had to be exciting for you as a professional actor, to be on the cutting edge of something that netflix is doing, which is adjusting to viewer habits and family ways now. >> yeah. it's really interesting in the way that people are taking this show, and it's great as an actor to be able to be on the cutting edge and to be the first people who put it out there, who put something out there. >> what kind of response are you getting from it? >> incredibly positive. it's been -- i think the word that i keep hearing is "addictive." it's addictive. you know, it's the most addicting show i've ever watched. and they're watching all of them very quickly. >> well, yeah. they get it on the weekend. they go from one series to the next series. how big is this going to get, do you think? >> i think it's pretty big now,
and i think it's only going to get bigger. everyone keeps talking about the word of mouth on the show, and everyone just keeps watching it and then telling someone else, and then they're watching it and they tell someone else. because it's immediately available it just makes it so much -- >> revolutionary, do you think? >> i think so. >> now, the character that you play is pretty ruthless. did you -- how did this all come about? did you research -- >> no. you mean a particular person? no. the character's not based on anyone. i did talk with a chief of staff to a very prominent politician, but i don't want her for a second to think that i based the character on her in any way. the character was very much on the paper. beau willimon's the writer. an incredible writer. an incredible writing staff. but he was very much there to play. >> series is dark and engrossing, and it's getting plenty of buzz. why do you think the story is resonating so strongly when there's so many people in this country that hate washington? >> it certainly gives them more reasons to hate, i think.